>>Anyway, criticism of a source is pointless without checking at least relevant excerpts of the source itself or criticism of the critic ("debunkers of the debunkers"). It is very easy and common to misrepresent oposing views by means of quote-mining and other techniques.

It is very easy to take a grey thing(The Tao) and another grey thing(Quantum physics) and compare them to fool gullible people.

It is very easy to form a conspiracy theory out of grey information. ALL conspiracy theories rely on ambiguity. FUNNY that.

>>The Egyptian, Tolmec and Roman structures are evidence of highly advanced stone building skills (no more, no less). Interesting is also that some of these advanced techniques (eg. binding huge blocks by means of metal pieces moulded on the spot) were used both in pre-Columbian South-America and in the "New World", which might suggest a mutual influence.

Yes, because there's no way idiot blackies could do stuff like this. Aliens, no doubt white Belgian speaking ones, told them how to do it.

How is moulded metal advanced? Anyone can do it with a fire and some clay and some metal ore.

Oh, so you already knew about the criticisms of your evidence? I bet not.

Do you really think this is the first time I'm having this discussion?!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

I bet I could ask you to provide details of debunkery on any subject and you'd have to google it.

You assume too much.

My directly retrievable knowledge of "debunkery" depends on the topic as I've invested more time in some topics than others. For example, I can reference numerous examples regarding criticism of Holocaust revisionism (Himmler's Posen speech, the Einsatzgruppen coffin map, a few passages from the Goebbels diaries, ...), 9/11 (the NIST pancake theory, "pulling" meaning "evacuation" rather than "demolition" when Silverstein used it, claims that the structure of the WTC was only meant to take the impact of smaller planes, the lack of any direct links to CIA or Mossad, ...) or the domination of Jews over Western civilisation (Jews became bankers and thieves because they had no other option due to bigotry, most Jews are unaware of any anti-gentile agenda, many gentiles are also powerful and immoral, Jews and Jewish movements are ideologically diverse, ...) however I know only little about the "debunking" arguments regarding the murder of Kennedy or Roosevelt's explicit provocation of Pearl Harbor and would have to look up details in those cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

Quote:

They used skills that DIED OUT. We could easily relearn them and replicate them today.

Just like we could easily learn space travel, I guess.....

Where is the logic in this statement? It means nothing.

We are currently not capable of space travel (beyond earth orbit) because our current state of technology does not allow this in a safe, efficient and affordable way. Similarly, we're currently not capable of building some of the structures the ancients built (like the pyramids) because our current state of technology does not allow this in a safe, efficient and affordable way. Ignoring evidence of advanced stone building techniques is as silly as ignoring evidence of space travel as both imply advances in civilisation beyond our own.

Capice?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

OMG. Jumping to conclusions they call it. Bullshit, I call it. Just because something doesn't tally with what is presently known does not mean aliens had anything to do with it.

Who's mentioning aliens? I never mentioned aliens at all. You're the one leaping to conclusions.

All I'm saying, is that the pre-Columbian presence of coca in Egypt and negroes in South-America is anarchronistic from the POV of the official historiography. All I'm doing, is looking with an open mind for an alternative to the official historiography that does explain this as well as other anomalies. The existence of a lost pre-Egyptian civilisation with highly advanced knowledge in fields like shipping, stone-carving, astronomy and theoretical physics (whether called "Atlantis", "Lemuria", "Hyperborea", "Shambala" or otherwise) is such an alternative that I'm considering as it not only explains these anomalies but also provides a different perspective on ancient mythology (eg. Gods and demi-gods being both symbols for natural occurances and references to ancient colonisers from this civilisation).

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

It is now accepted that Columbus did not discover America. There is evidence of many other people getting there first, chiefly the American Indians! I suppose they flew there, did they?

To my knowledge, it is only accepted that Vikings set foot on the Americas a handful of times with their boats and that Mongoloid peoples once crossed the Bering strait from Asia to North-America when it was frozen. This by no means explains the presence of negroes in South-America or the presence of coca in ancient Egypt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

There is nothing supernatural about people getting in boats and crossing large oceans. Get a grip.

You're the one who should get a grip. Where did I imply ANYTHING about this being supernatural?

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

It is very easy to take a grey thing(The Tao) and another grey thing(Quantum physics) and compare them to fool gullible people.

True. However, when the shades of grey are very similar a comparison is justified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

It is very easy to form a conspiracy theory out of grey information. ALL conspiracy theories rely on ambiguity. FUNNY that.

All conspiracy theories are based on anomalies within the mainstream explanations and attempt to provide a logical explanation that is consistent with those anomalies. Sometimes this logic is farfetched and implausible, while other times it makes far more sense than the mainstream account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

>>The Egyptian, Tolmec and Roman structures are evidence of highly advanced stone building skills (no more, no less). Interesting is also that some of these advanced techniques (eg. binding huge blocks by means of metal pieces moulded on the spot) were used both in pre-Columbian South-America and in the "New World", which might suggest a mutual influence.

Yes, because there's no way idiot blackies could do stuff like this. Aliens, no doubt white Belgian speaking ones, told them how to do it.

You're the one bringing up aliens, not I.

My hypothesis is that there was a lost EARTHLY civilisation capable of colonising other nations and actively doing so, posing as Gods to increase their grip on the colonised peoples. Like many civilisations throughout history, this advanced civilisation collapsed and fragments of its knowledge ended up in libraries (eg. the library of Alexandria), while others were passed on orally between generations by mostly the sages (usually priests).

Quote:

Originally Posted by albie

How is moulded metal advanced? Anyone can do it with a fire and some clay and some metal ore.

I'm talking about the use of portable furnaces able to mould a connection between two blocks each weighing tons at the spot, as the ends of the metal part requires it to be moulded within both stone blocks itself. This would still be a puzzle for many 21st century engineers.

Basically, rapid technological innovation does not occur in isolated societies, but can occur when there is a broad geographical area with trade routes traversing it, as happened in Eurasia. It is highly unlikely that there would be a highly technological precursor society that was isolated to a small enough area not to have been found already.

__________________If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Basically, rapid technological innovation does not occur in isolated societies, but can occur when there is a broad geographical area with trade routes traversing it, as happened in Eurasia. It is highly unlikely that there would be a highly technological precursor society that was isolated to a small enough area not to have been found already.

The Pole shift hypothesis gives a possible explanation for what happened to this lost civilisation and why we haven't found it yet. If the Pole shift hypothesis is accurate, Antarctica would be a possible location for this lost civilisation and this would explain why we haven't found it yet.

Still, a civilization on Antartica, the terrestrial portion of which (not counting the current ice sheets) is still fairly small and isolated. It is highly unlikely they could have developed an advanced culture rapidly. All this aside from the fact that a significant enough pole shift to give it a warm climate has not happened since humankind evolved. The Precambrian pole shift is an interesting theory.

__________________If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Still, a civilization on Antartica, the terrestrial portion of which (not counting the current ice sheets) is still fairly small and isolated. It is highly unlikely they could have developed an advanced culture rapidly.

Who says they developed rapidly? Maybe they had tens of thousands of years to develop their culture before they traveled to and colonised other parts of the world. How can we know if we don't know what's under those huge layers of ice?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EireEngineer

All this aside from the fact that a significant enough pole shift to give it a warm climate has not happened since humankind evolved.

According to some, the so-called "Ice Ages" and the end thereof are caused by pole shifts.

Anyway, there's also "Hollow Earth" theory, but (although there is a physics theory to explain it all) even I find this too farfetched as it requires most polar NASA footage to be forged, many governments to be complicit in hiding the polar holes and you'd expect at least one person to have gone inside, taken pictures and put them on the Internet. But still : some people believe not aliens or some lost culture on the surface of the earth but a culture within Hollow Earth is the origin of the lost civilisation. I should add this to be complete since (although not very plausible) I'm not aware of any evidence contradicting it (if you're willing to accept claims that NASA is involved). Nevertheless, I would like to stess that I do NOT support this theory.

We are currently not capable of space travel (beyond earth orbit) because our current state of technology does not allow this in a safe, efficient and affordable way. Similarly, we're currently not capable of building some of the structures the ancients built (like the pyramids) because our current state of technology does not allow this in a safe, efficient and affordable way. Ignoring evidence of advanced stone building techniques is as silly as ignoring evidence of space travel as both imply advances in civilisation beyond our own.

BWAHAHAHAH! You are assuming ancient man could travel through space. BWAHAHAHAHA! Why? Because of all your other assumptions.